[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/xfs remove obsolete simple_strto<foo>

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/xfs remove obsolete simple_strto<foo>
From: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:48:51 +0800
Cc: Abhijit Pawar <abhi.c.pawar@xxxxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130111225246.GO3120@dastard>
References: <1357740282-2377-1-git-send-email-abhi.c.pawar@xxxxxxxxx> <50EFB2FE.2000307@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130111225246.GO3120@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
On 01/12/2013 06:52 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:36:46PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
>> On 01/09/2013 10:04 PM, Abhijit Pawar wrote:
>>> This patch replaces usages of obsolete simple_strtoul with kstrtoint in 
>>> xfs_args and suffix_strtoul.
>>> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pawar <abhi.c.pawar@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> +                   if (kstrtoint(value, 10, &dswidth))
>>> +                           return EINVAL;
>>>             } else if (!strcmp(this_char, MNTOPT_32BITINODE)) {
>>>                     mp->m_flags |= XFS_MOUNT_SMALL_INUMS;
>>>             } else if (!strcmp(this_char, MNTOPT_64BITINODE)) {
>> checkpatch.pl show warning if we return EINVAL as below:
>> WARNING: return of an errno should typically be -ve (return -EINVAL)
>> Can we just ignore such code style issue?
> Returning a positive error is not a code style issue. It's a
> correctness issue. the core of the XFS code returns positive error
> numbers as that's the way it was done on Irix (where the XFs code
> comes from). The rest of the Linux code tends to use negative values
> for error returns, and we've never converted the XFS code base to
> negative errors.
> You should always feel free to ignore checkpatch warnings that make
> no sense. I haven't used checkpatch now for several years - I
> stopped using it when it got too noisy warning about uselesss,
> trivial things in the XFS code base....
Thanks for the clarification, that would save me time to handle
checkpatch warnings against XFS in the future. :)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>